| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: forgotten initalization of a variable |
| Date: | 2020-04-21 09:09:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20200421.180930.1857070578670533587.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:34:26 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:08:30PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > The commit a7e8ece41c adds a new member restoreCommand to
> > XLogPageReadPrivate. readOneRecord doesn't make use of it but forgets
> > to set NULL. That can lead to illegal pointer access.
>
> That's an oversight of the original commit. Now, instead of failing
> even if there is a restore command, wouldn't it be better to pass down
> the restore_command to readOneRecord() so as we can optionally
> improve the stability of a single record lookup? This only applies to
Oops! You're right.
> a checkpoint record now, but this routine could be called elsewhere in
> the future. Please see the attached.
It looks fine to me.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeevan Ladhe | 2020-04-21 09:35:38 | Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup |
| Previous Message | Andy Fan | 2020-04-21 08:37:25 | Re: WIP: Aggregation push-down |